# C.S. Marble & Granite, Inc. Clayton M. Schwarz, Individually and Suzanne L. Schwarz, Individually v. CIT Small Business Lending Corporation

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · April 2, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3118927

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** April 2, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3118927

## Opinion text

Opinion issued April 2, 2013

In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas

NO. 01-12-00513-CV

C.S. MARBLE & GRANITE, INC. CLAYTON M. SCHWARZ,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND SUZANNE L. SCHWARZ, INDIVIDUALLY,
Appellants

V.

CIT SMALL BUSINESS LENDING CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2011-56171

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, C.S. Marble & Granite, Inc., Clayton M. Schwarz, and Suzanne

L. Schwarz, have neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for

purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in
civil cases unless indigent), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence);

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (West Supp. 2012), § 51.941(a) (Vernon

2005), § 101.041 (West Supp. 2012) (listing fees in court of appeals); Order

Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of

Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket

No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1)

(listing fees in court of appeals). The filing fee was due May 30, 2012. After

being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants did not respond.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3 (allowing involuntary

dismissal of appeal). Further, appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. Appellants did not respond.

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3118927. Public record. Not legal advice.